The topic of how the media covers acts of terror is not a new subject for me. I have thought about it a few times over the years because of the way that terroristic acts have increased. For those who were not old enough to have witnessed the September 11 tragedy either in person or on television, it is clear that the effects of those events remain present today. One of the major effects is how the media covers terrorism incidents. The Chermak and Gruenewald article serves as a very sharp reminder of something that I have known for a long time. The media (specifically the news and newspapers) is more than just a source of information that keeps people from all across the nation bound together in the knowledge of what is going on both inside and outside of where they live. The media is also a business. To remain successful in any business, the focus has to be placed on what sells and that is the approach that the media has taken regarding the reporting of terrorism incidents.
Following the events of 9/11, the focus of society has been on terrorism and preventing America from ever being victims of terroristic acts again. Because the attention and the priority that society places on this is widely known, media outlets know exactly what they need to focus on to keep people reading and watching what they are producing. Just like any other story, however, the stories chosen have to be big and impactful. They have to tap into the existing fear that people now have of terrorism to such a degree that they do not want to pull their eyes away from what they are watching and reading. This has been the focus of the media.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Media And Terror".
According to the article, in the mist of focusing on “major terrorism events” the media has failed to report on the vast majority of the terrorism events that have occurred because these events were deemed to not be news worthy. They simply were not big, shocking, and impactful enough to dedicate the resources of publication and production. In the course of the media’s filtering process, which determines which terrorism act is news worthy and which is not, public perception and understanding of terrorism has been influenced. Because media outlets present terrorism in the same manner as any other crime, society now sees terrorism as a normal (albeit unfortunate) part of our existence. Because media outlets only focus on the most sensational of stories, it now takes sensationalism to get the attention of people when it comes to terrorism and nothing is known or really even cared about with regard to the terrorism incidents that have been characterized as smaller and less exciting. There is something very wrong with this in my opinion.
Whether or not we want to admit it to be true, the media influences what people care about. People can only be concerned with what they know and the media is the main source of societal knowledge. When a terrorism incident is large and sensational enough, it is guaranteed that the vast majority of media outlets will be covering the story. The result is an increase in the knowledge of society (from the perspective of the media) pertaining to the event and a call for government to act. Government is responsive to the people that it serves and it is in this manner that the media influences governmental policy. With this being true, it would seem to me that the media would take a more responsible approach to what it presents and how it presents it; however, like a said before, media is a business.
In conclusion, the media is the primary source of influence with regard to what society feels is important and what society knows about what they feel is important. With that being considered, I think that Chermak and Gruenewald are absolutely correct concerning their belief that the way that the media covers terrorism is a topic that deserves further research. The implication of the correlation between the way that the media covers terrorism and the way that society responds to that coverage from both a cultural and political perspective is too great to be ignored. Maybe if more research is conducted and more light is shown on the impact and influence that media coverage of terrorism has on society, media outlets will be more responsible with regard to what they report and how they report terrorism information. Honestly speaking, I think that this is wishful thinking and that the media will always approach its information providing responsibilities to the public from a business and profitability perspective. That is the beauty of the First Amendment and deviating from this approach requires a sense of integrity and an ethical foundation that many media outlets have yet to acquire or even deem important. It is my opinion that this is the sad reality that this article emphasizes.
